Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (8 Viewers)

[timschochet]

That's an awfully convenient answer, and it ignores reality. When Obama ran in 2008 he promised some movement on health care. We got ACA. If McCain had been elected that wouldn't have happened. Is that a reasonable assumption?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Health care? Hillary blew up Bill's HC task force with her secrecy and mismanagement.

 

[The Commish]

That's an awfully convenient answer, and it ignores reality. When Obama ran in 2008 he promised some movement on health care. We got ACA. If McCain had been elected that wouldn't have happened. Is that a reasonable assumption?

You certainly wouldn't have gotten ACA under McCain. Agree 100% If you can point to what reality I am ignoring in that statement, I'd appreciate it. The only thing I said was a pretty "water is wet" sort of comment pointing out that what politicians say and do are two different things most of the time.

At the time, we had no idea if Obama would deliver on his promise either. You're looking at that with the benefit of hindsight which completely misses the point being made.

 

[Slapdash]

I reject your false choice between slightly different flavors of the establishment.

you always have. And I admire you for it, honestly.But are you being realistic in your pretense that you can reject it?

The democrats don't have to nominate someone who isn't liberal...I can reject it until they do. Probably harder after the fact, but very hard to see what gets me to pull the lever for Hillary.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/note-hillary-clinton-things/story?id=31143222

"HILLARY CLINTON HAS GONE 27 DAYS WITHOUT TAKING A PRESS QUESTION"

Andrew Kaczynski ‏@BuzzFeedAndrew ·

Part of the problem here is regular people don't really care that Hillary is ignoring media.

Why is that a problem?

I think he meant the problem the media has with this, not that it is a problem for Hillary. Twitter responses can be ambiguous.

Let's face it, Hillary declared when she did for two reasons:

1. To respond to the email reports and other issues that were breaking. She could not formally gather a campaign response team until she had a campaign, under FEC law.

2. To raise money. Sure in January and February and March Hillary was still raking in the personal checks from companies that would be doing business before her as president, but it's only when you declare the campaign has begun that you can rake in the Super-Pac money. Now she is even coordinating with David Brock's Super-Pac, which if course should be illegal, but hey she will do that in everyone's face anyway, including progressives who find that kind of thing reprehensible. .

I think the hand crafted little gatherings in Iowa where she does a dog and pony show and just "listens" but says nothing is just to maintain the thin veneer of an actual campaign, but it's really unnecessary.

 

[timschochet]

Hillary goes shopping

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-takes-a-detour-but-stays-on-message/

INDEPENDENCE, Iowa — Hillary Rodham Clinton followed a round-table discussion with small-business owners in Cedar Falls, Iowa, on Tuesday with an impromptu shopping trip in nearby Independence.

Mrs. Clinton, her aides and a horde of journalists traveled half an hour to stop in at Em’s Coffee Co., Hardware Hank and Laree’s: The Shop of Favorites, which sells toys and assorted knick-knacks.

“I would love to get some coffee!” Mrs. Clinton said at Em’s, a small shop that sells sandwiches, juices and smoothies, in addition to drinks of the caffeinated variety.

The owner, Emilea Hillman, made Mrs. Clinton an espresso as she gazed at the press scrum that crowded in to get a peek.

“I get worried about all these people, too,” Mrs. Clinton said, according to a pool reporter the campaign allowed into the small shop.

Then she stopped at Laree’s, owned by Laree Randal. The presidential candidate — who used to wear thick glasses — tried on a pair of green, bug-eyed toy glasses, but away from the view of the news media.

As Mrs. Clinton made her pitch earlier to small-business owners, her campaign tried to keep surrogates focused on her agenda, rather than the questions reporters asked her after the event — ranging from her use of private email as secretary of state to foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation.

“Buy something,” Mrs. Clinton said to reporters. “Help small businesses!”

To stay on message, the campaign e-mailed talking points to surrogates that included key moments from her event on Tuesday.

“Today in Iowa, she said she wants to be a ‘small business President’ and will continue this discussion in New Hampshire later this week,” said the list of talking points, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times.

After her swing through Iowa, Mrs. Clinton planned to fly to Chicago for fund-raisers before she returns to New Hampshire on Friday for another round-table chat about small businesses — with journalists in tow determined to discuss other topics.

 

[squistion]

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-answers-questions-on-iraq-emails-the-foundation-and-wealth/?smid=tw-share

Hillary Clinton Answers Questions on Iraq, Emails, the Foundation and Wealth

CEDAR FALLS, Iowa Hillary Rodham Clinton addressed reporters Tuesday, fielding questions on topics ranging from her personal wealth and her familys foundation to the deteriorating situation in Iraq, saying at one point that she made a mistake as a United States senator in voting to authorize the war in Iraq.

Mrs. Clinton, who has been criticized for weeks by Republicans and members of the national news media for her unwillingness to engage with the political press corps, approached journalists and answered five questions after a round-table discussion in Cedar Falls focusing on small business creation.

"I am so proud of the foundation," Mrs. Clinton said in response to a question about the controversy surrounding foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation. "I'll let the American people make their own judgments."

Mrs. Clinton also defended her relationship with Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime friend and confidant who was paid by the Clinton Foundation and offered her advice about the situation in Libya while she served as secretary of state.

"I have many, many old friends and I always think that its important when you get into politics to have friends you had before you were in politics and to understand whats on their mind," she said. (Mr. Blumenthal served as an adviser to former President Bill Clinton in the White House and has been close to the Clintons since.)

In the five-minute session with reporters, Mrs. Clinton also addressed questions about her exclusive use of a personal email address while at the State Department, saying she wanted the department to release the emails she sent and received from her private account sooner rather than the estimated January 2016 release.

"They belong to the State Department, so the State Department has to go through its process," Mrs. Clinton said. But as much as they can expedite the process, thats what Im asking them to do."

By exclusively using a personal email account while at the State Department, much of Clintons correspondence was shielded from federal records requests, creating a firestorm from Republicans investigating her handling of a 2012 attack on a United States mission in Benghazi.

But according to most polls, voters have not changed their opinion about Mrs. Clinton over issues like her private emails or the foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation

 

[The Commish]

Is it me, or does what passes for an "answer" in Washington get less and less by the minute? Why do we put up with that?

 

[MaxThreshold]

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-answers-questions-on-iraq-emails-the-foundation-and-wealth/?smid=tw-share

Hillary Clinton Answers Questions on Iraq, Emails, the Foundation and Wealth

CEDAR FALLS, Iowa Hillary Rodham Clinton addressed reporters Tuesday, fielding questions on topics ranging from her personal wealth and her familys foundation to the deteriorating situation in Iraq, saying at one point that she made a mistake as a United States senator in voting to authorize the war in Iraq.

Mrs. Clinton, who has been criticized for weeks by Republicans and members of the national news media for her unwillingness to engage with the political press corps, approached journalists and answered five questions after a round-table discussion in Cedar Falls focusing on small business creation.

"I am so proud of the foundation," Mrs. Clinton said in response to a question about the controversy surrounding foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation. "I'll let the American people make their own judgments."

Mrs. Clinton also defended her relationship with Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime friend and confidant who was paid by the Clinton Foundation and offered her advice about the situation in Libya while she served as secretary of state.

"I have many, many old friends and I always think that its important when you get into politics to have friends you had before you were in politics and to understand whats on their mind," she said. (Mr. Blumenthal served as an adviser to former President Bill Clinton in the White House and has been close to the Clintons since.)

In the five-minute session with reporters, Mrs. Clinton also addressed questions about her exclusive use of a personal email address while at the State Department, saying she wanted the department to release the emails she sent and received from her private account sooner rather than the estimated January 2016 release.

"They belong to the State Department, so the State Department has to go through its process," Mrs. Clinton said. But as much as they can expedite the process, thats what Im asking them to do."

By exclusively using a personal email account while at the State Department, much of Clintons correspondence was shielded from federal records requests, creating a firestorm from Republicans investigating her handling of a 2012 attack on a United States mission in Benghazi.

But according to most polls, voters have not changed their opinion about Mrs. Clinton over issues like her private emails or the foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation

5 minutes?

So, like before, she hasn't answered anything. But I'm sure the I Love Hillary crowd will point to this and say everything has now been settled.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

When asked about the $25 million in income she and her husband have accumulated from paid speeches since the beginning of last year, Mrs. Clinton said she could still relate to middle- and working-class voters who are struggling.

“Obviously Bill and I have been blessed and we are very grateful for the opportunities,” she said. “I’m running a campaign that is very clearly stating we want to reshuffle the deck.”

It's like Platitude City with her.

Seriously, politically, I think she should get out there. I realize she is in the collect the money stage, but she is really letting a lot of news and allegations fly by, at and through her without responding or responding adequately.

The 1990's playbook was written before crowd-sourcing. Her emails will be going into a searchable database online, for instance. I realize she has a different, newer hipper team from 2008, but she does appear to be making some similar mistakes.

 

[squistion]

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-answers-questions-on-iraq-emails-the-foundation-and-wealth/?smid=tw-share

Hillary Clinton Answers Questions on Iraq, Emails, the Foundation and Wealth

CEDAR FALLS, Iowa Hillary Rodham Clinton addressed reporters Tuesday, fielding questions on topics ranging from her personal wealth and her familys foundation to the deteriorating situation in Iraq, saying at one point that she made a mistake as a United States senator in voting to authorize the war in Iraq.

Mrs. Clinton, who has been criticized for weeks by Republicans and members of the national news media for her unwillingness to engage with the political press corps, approached journalists and answered five questions after a round-table discussion in Cedar Falls focusing on small business creation.

"I am so proud of the foundation," Mrs. Clinton said in response to a question about the controversy surrounding foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation. "I'll let the American people make their own judgments."

Mrs. Clinton also defended her relationship with Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime friend and confidant who was paid by the Clinton Foundation and offered her advice about the situation in Libya while she served as secretary of state.

"I have many, many old friends and I always think that its important when you get into politics to have friends you had before you were in politics and to understand whats on their mind," she said. (Mr. Blumenthal served as an adviser to former President Bill Clinton in the White House and has been close to the Clintons since.)

In the five-minute session with reporters, Mrs. Clinton also addressed questions about her exclusive use of a personal email address while at the State Department, saying she wanted the department to release the emails she sent and received from her private account sooner rather than the estimated January 2016 release.

"They belong to the State Department, so the State Department has to go through its process," Mrs. Clinton said. But as much as they can expedite the process, thats what Im asking them to do."

By exclusively using a personal email account while at the State Department, much of Clintons correspondence was shielded from federal records requests, creating a firestorm from Republicans investigating her handling of a 2012 attack on a United States mission in Benghazi.

But according to most polls, voters have not changed their opinion about Mrs. Clinton over issues like her private emails or the foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation

5 minutes?

So, like before, she hasn't answered anything. But I'm sure the I Love Hillary crowd will point to this and say everything has now been settled.

Of course everything is not settled. What is settled is the meme that she is afraid to face reporters and answer any of their questions, which she just did. You might not find the answers sufficient but she did field the questions asked, contrary to what was predicted here.

 

[MaxThreshold]

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-answers-questions-on-iraq-emails-the-foundation-and-wealth/?smid=tw-share

Hillary Clinton Answers Questions on Iraq, Emails, the Foundation and Wealth

CEDAR FALLS, Iowa Hillary Rodham Clinton addressed reporters Tuesday, fielding questions on topics ranging from her personal wealth and her familys foundation to the deteriorating situation in Iraq, saying at one point that she made a mistake as a United States senator in voting to authorize the war in Iraq.

Mrs. Clinton, who has been criticized for weeks by Republicans and members of the national news media for her unwillingness to engage with the political press corps, approached journalists and answered five questions after a round-table discussion in Cedar Falls focusing on small business creation.

"I am so proud of the foundation," Mrs. Clinton said in response to a question about the controversy surrounding foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation. "I'll let the American people make their own judgments."

Mrs. Clinton also defended her relationship with Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime friend and confidant who was paid by the Clinton Foundation and offered her advice about the situation in Libya while she served as secretary of state.

"I have many, many old friends and I always think that its important when you get into politics to have friends you had before you were in politics and to understand whats on their mind," she said. (Mr. Blumenthal served as an adviser to former President Bill Clinton in the White House and has been close to the Clintons since.)

In the five-minute session with reporters, Mrs. Clinton also addressed questions about her exclusive use of a personal email address while at the State Department, saying she wanted the department to release the emails she sent and received from her private account sooner rather than the estimated January 2016 release.

"They belong to the State Department, so the State Department has to go through its process," Mrs. Clinton said. But as much as they can expedite the process, thats what Im asking them to do."

By exclusively using a personal email account while at the State Department, much of Clintons correspondence was shielded from federal records requests, creating a firestorm from Republicans investigating her handling of a 2012 attack on a United States mission in Benghazi.

But according to most polls, voters have not changed their opinion about Mrs. Clinton over issues like her private emails or the foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation

5 minutes?

So, like before, she hasn't answered anything. But I'm sure the I Love Hillary crowd will point to this and say everything has now been settled.

Of course everything is not settled. What is settled is the meme that she is afraid to face reporters and answer any of their questions, which she just did. You might not find the answers sufficient but she did field the questions asked, contrary to what was predicted here.

Hang on..it took her how long to face reporters? And only 5 minutes? You seriously can't point to this 5 MINUTE q/a session and proclaim that the meme is dead.

 

[squistion]

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-answers-questions-on-iraq-emails-the-foundation-and-wealth/?smid=tw-share

Hillary Clinton Answers Questions on Iraq, Emails, the Foundation and Wealth

CEDAR FALLS, Iowa Hillary Rodham Clinton addressed reporters Tuesday, fielding questions on topics ranging from her personal wealth and her familys foundation to the deteriorating situation in Iraq, saying at one point that she made a mistake as a United States senator in voting to authorize the war in Iraq.

Mrs. Clinton, who has been criticized for weeks by Republicans and members of the national news media for her unwillingness to engage with the political press corps, approached journalists and answered five questions after a round-table discussion in Cedar Falls focusing on small business creation.

"I am so proud of the foundation," Mrs. Clinton said in response to a question about the controversy surrounding foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation. "I'll let the American people make their own judgments."

Mrs. Clinton also defended her relationship with Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime friend and confidant who was paid by the Clinton Foundation and offered her advice about the situation in Libya while she served as secretary of state.

"I have many, many old friends and I always think that its important when you get into politics to have friends you had before you were in politics and to understand whats on their mind," she said. (Mr. Blumenthal served as an adviser to former President Bill Clinton in the White House and has been close to the Clintons since.)

In the five-minute session with reporters, Mrs. Clinton also addressed questions about her exclusive use of a personal email address while at the State Department, saying she wanted the department to release the emails she sent and received from her private account sooner rather than the estimated January 2016 release.

"They belong to the State Department, so the State Department has to go through its process," Mrs. Clinton said. But as much as they can expedite the process, thats what Im asking them to do."

By exclusively using a personal email account while at the State Department, much of Clintons correspondence was shielded from federal records requests, creating a firestorm from Republicans investigating her handling of a 2012 attack on a United States mission in Benghazi.

But according to most polls, voters have not changed their opinion about Mrs. Clinton over issues like her private emails or the foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation

5 minutes?

So, like before, she hasn't answered anything. But I'm sure the I Love Hillary crowd will point to this and say everything has now been settled.

Of course everything is not settled. What is settled is the meme that she is afraid to face reporters and answer any of their questions, which she just did. You might not find the answers sufficient but she did field the questions asked, contrary to what was predicted here.

Hang on..it took her how long to face reporters? And only 5 minutes? You seriously can't point to this 5 MINUTE q/a session and proclaim that the meme is dead.

Yup, the meme was she was afraid to answer any questions, which she did. Can't say that any more. If you want to change the meme to that she won't give answers you find satisfactory, go ahead (but I could say the same thing about most of the GOP candidates).

However the former meme is now

 

[MaxThreshold]

Yup, the meme was she was afraid to answer any questions, which she did. Can't say that any more. If you want to change the meme to that she won't give answers you find satisfactory, go ahead (but I could say the same thing about most of the GOP candidates).

However the former meme is now

Uhm...no. LONG LIVE THE MEME!

 

[squistion]

Yup, the meme was she was afraid to answer any questions, which she did. Can't say that any more. If you want to change the meme to that she won't give answers you find satisfactory, go ahead (but I could say the same thing about most of the GOP candidates).

However the former meme is now

Uhm...no. LONG LIVE THE MEME!

Fine, hope those on the right GOP keep hammering that point home along with Benghazi, the emails and the Clinton Foundation. That should help sway what few undecided voters there are towards Hillary as there is no there there. And one of the big sound bites I have been seeing on the news progamrs today is Hillary very simply saying in one sentence that her vote for the Iraqi intervention was a mistake (not hemming and hawing like Jeb or Rubio to come up with an answer).

 

[MaxThreshold]

Yup, the meme was she was afraid to answer any questions, which she did. Can't say that any more. If you want to change the meme to that she won't give answers you find satisfactory, go ahead (but I could say the same thing about most of the GOP candidates).

However the former meme is now

Uhm...no. LONG LIVE THE MEME!

Fine, hope those on the right GOP keep hammering that point home along with Benghazi, the emails and the Clinton Foundation. That should help sway what few undecided voters there are towards Hillary as there is no there there. And one of the big sound bites I have been seeing on the news progamrs today is Hillary very simply saying in one sentence that her vote for the Iraqi intervention was a mistake (not hemming and hawing like Jeb or Rubio to come up with an answer).

See, the problem with guys like you is that you think EVERYTHING regarding Hillary is meaningless - unless it's positive then you shout it to the heavens.

You're just the opposite of the "Hillary Derangement Syndrome" types. You're willing to accept anything and everything without question.

 

[squistion]

See, the problem with guys like you is that you think EVERYTHING regarding Hillary is meaningless - unless it's positive then you shout it to the heavens.

You're just the opposite of the "Hillary Derangement Syndrome" types. You're willing to accept anything and everything without question.

Dude, it is all smoke and no fire. Hillary has never been charged with anything in this never ending parade of false accusations of her character going back to the 90's. Ken Starr spent $40 million of taxpayer money as a special prosecutor trying to hang something, anything on Hillary and he found zilch. Come up with something legitimate and we can go from there, but I have yet to see it.

 

[MaxThreshold]

See, the problem with guys like you is that you think EVERYTHING regarding Hillary is meaningless - unless it's positive then you shout it to the heavens.

You're just the opposite of the "Hillary Derangement Syndrome" types. You're willing to accept anything and everything without question.

Dude, it is all smoke and no fire. Hillary has never been charged with anything in this never ending parade of false accusations of her character going back to the 90's. Ken Starr spent $40 million of taxpayer money as a special prosecutor trying to hang something, anything on Hillary and he found zilch. Come up with something legitimate and we can go from there, but I have yet to see it.

OF COURSE IT IS! That's all you'll ever want to see.

 

[squistion]

See, the problem with guys like you is that you think EVERYTHING regarding Hillary is meaningless - unless it's positive then you shout it to the heavens.

You're just the opposite of the "Hillary Derangement Syndrome" types. You're willing to accept anything and everything without question.

Dude, it is all smoke and no fire. Hillary has never been charged with anything in this never ending parade of false accusations of her character going back to the 90's. Ken Starr spent $40 million of taxpayer money as a special prosecutor trying to hang something, anything on Hillary and he found zilch. Come up with something legitimate and we can go from there, but I have yet to see it.

OF COURSE IT IS! That's all you'll ever want to see.

And she has been charged with violating what laws again?

 

[timschochet]

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one here who is actually in favor of Hilary Clinton.

The liberals will defend her in the scandal thread, but most of them in this forum would really love somebody more progressive like Warren or Sanders. They'll vote for Hillary only because they'll have to. Of course, no conservative around her likes her at all.

Nobody in this forum seems to like the centrist candidate or the establishment candidate. It's very depressing. Thankfully, it's not representative of the American people. The public like Hillary Clinton, and they find her trustworthy. The public tends to like centrist, middle of the road establishment candidates, just like I do. They're rightfully wary of people that are too far to the left or the right. But if you only pay attention to the FFA, such centrists don't exist.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim her favorability has suffered somewhat but she's still doing fine, however her trustworthy ratings stink.

 

[NREC34]

I heard on Maddow last night that Hillary will be in Texas campaigning for a couple of days next month. I'm really happy to hear this. Make republicans play some defense somewhere they take for granted. I can't wait for the day it turns full blue. Maybe not 16 but I think it's coming.

 

[squistion]

The liberals will defend her in the scandal thread, but most of them in this forum would really love somebody more progressive like Warren or Sanders. They'll vote for Hillary only because they'll have to. Of course, no conservative around her likes her at all.

You are wrong about how most liberals and progressives feel about Hillary. But don't take my word for, I think you will agree that Kos of Daily Kos qualifies as a liberal/progressive:

http://thehill.com/opinion/markos-moulitsas/242587-markos-moulitsas-clinton-a-true-liberal

Clinton a true liberal

By Markos Moultisas - 05/19/15 06:11 PM EDT

At the State of the Union address early this year, President Obama delivered the most explicitly liberal speech of his presidency, a genuine call to arms that expands on the past successes of Democratic policies. It was Democrats, indeed, who enacted "worker protections, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, to protect ourselves from the harshest adversity." It was Democrats who "gave our citizens schools and colleges, infrastructure and the Internet tools they needed to go as far as their effort will take them."

The speech included none of the middle-of-the-road, centrist Third Way pablum that has infected the party for a generation. It was, in short, exactly what liberal activists had spent years calling for. And the architect of that speech? John Podesta. The same John Podesta who now chairs Hillary Clintons presidential campaign.

That simple connection suggests Clinton is shedding her husbands ideological baggage and aiming for a truly progressive presidency. Why, after all, would Podesta help craft such an explicitly liberal State of the Union address if he was then going to help take it all back with Clinton? That address might have been the beginning of a rhetorical bridge spanning the Obama and future Clinton presidencies.

If you oppose Clinton from the left, you might scoff at such logic. But the actions of her nascent campaign certainly support that theory.

For example, there is her choice of Robby Mook as her campaign manager. In 2013, Mook helmed Terry McAuliffes successful gubernatorial run in Virginia the first time the same party occupying the White House has won the state since 1973. Sure, Mook justly gets a lot of credit for winning with a candidate as flawed and unappealing as McAuliffe. But the real beauty of that victory was that McAuliffe won by running an explicit base turnout election.

Traditionally, Virginia Democrats focus heavily on rural white voters with gimmicks like sponsoring NASCAR cars. Mook instead focused heavily on the ethnically and racially diverse D.C. suburbs in Northern Virginia and African-American communities in places like Richmond, and delivered an elusive off-year electoral victory for Democrats. In fact, Mook was so successful, there was no African-American voter drop-off between 2012 and 2013.

If Clinton was interested in another tepid I-stand-for-nothing campaign, she could've brought back Mark Penn for another losing effort. But you dont hire Mook to depress your best supporters. Quite the opposite, in fact.

On actual substance, Clintons early speechifying is also cause for optimism. On immigration, she now supports measures far beyond anything Obama has proposed, generating enthusiastic support from the Hispanic community. Shes been saying all the right things on police brutality and criminal reform (as her husband admits the mistakes of his get-tough-on-crime policies). And on income inequality, where even her staunchest liberal supporters can be skeptical, Clinton is striking a populist tone and her lack of support for the presidents lobbying efforts on behalf of his Pacific trade deal hasnt gone unnoticed.

Indeed, for those hoping to generate a genuine primary challenge against Clinton, shes provided very little ammo for them to work with. When Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) entered the primary with a stirring call for a stronger middle class, Clinton tweeted in response, "I agree with Bernie." The old Clinton wouldnt have been caught dead anywhere near those words.

So for those hoping that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) or Sanders would push Clinton to the left, it appears its too late. She's already there.

(Moulitsas is the founder and publisher of Daily Kos).

 

[timschochet]

No I agree that most liberals like her. I wrote that in the other thread. I was speaking, here, of liberals in THIS forum. In general the liberals in here tend to be very anti-establishment and are not enthused about Hillary.

 

[flysack]

She got Nina Hartley's vote

 

[skol asylum]

Jim Webb > Hillary Clinton

I wish people would realize this.

 

[joffer]

It's a little depressing. I certainly don't want her to be president, unless it prevents the winner of the wingnut patrol from being president. Hopefully Gary Johnson runs again so I can at least vote.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So apparently Hillary's official, real, kickoff and campaign launch has been delayed at least a month.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clinton-2016-launch-delay-118118.html#ixzz3adCjGsCI

In February WaPo reported that her SuperPac Priorities USA was having trouble raising money because the Foundation had soaked up all the main donors.

Now apparently the SuperPac has raised only around $5 million since she launched.

 

[BassNBrew]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clinton-emails-deemed-personal-118176.html?ml=tl_7_b

Who's paying for all of this?

If I did something like this in my field, the gov't would prevent me from ever doing business in the field again.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clinton-emails-deemed-personal-118176.html?ml=tl_7_b

Who's paying for all of this?

If I did something like this in my field, the gov't would prevent me from ever doing business in the field again.

You, me, taxpayers. Not Hillary. The paper side of things is really cumbersome, time consuming and expensive.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/21/politics/clinton-foundation-speech-income/?iid=ob_homepage_showcase_pool&iref=obnetwork

 

[Johnnymac]

This thread is a perfect example of how people are obsessed with the Clinton's. You have the absolute hatred on one side and the love on the other side. What I don't understand is the hatred. I mean, people just absolutely HATE the Clinton's. Why?

 

[NREC34]

This thread is a perfect example of how people are obsessed with the Clinton's. You have the absolute hatred on one side and the love on the other side. What I don't understand is the hatred. I mean, people just absolutely HATE the Clinton's. Why?

They have a "D" beside of their name?

 

[timschochet]

This thread is a perfect example of how people are obsessed with the Clinton's. You have the absolute hatred on one side and the love on the other side. What I don't understand is the hatred. I mean, people just absolutely HATE the Clinton's. Why?

They have a "D" beside of their name?

No. And it's not Bill either. For Hillary and Obama, there is a level of hatred among conservatives that is unsurpassed in my lifetime, IMO.

 

[MaxThreshold]

This thread is a perfect example of how people are obsessed with the Clinton's. You have the absolute hatred on one side and the love on the other side. What I don't understand is the hatred. I mean, people just absolutely HATE the Clinton's. Why?

They have a "D" beside of their name?

Yeah, it's that shallow. Everyone should just forget all of the two decades or more of shady #### that happens with the Clintons and focus on the "D" beside their name.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

This thread is a perfect example of how people are obsessed with the Clinton's. You have the absolute hatred on one side and the love on the other side. What I don't understand is the

hatred. I mean, people just absolutely HATE the Clinton's. Why?

They have a "D" beside of their name?

No. And it's not Bill either. For Hillary and Obama, there is a level of hatred among conservatives that is unsurpassed in my lifetime, IMO.

For anyone who happens to be new here, this is Tim's subtle way of calling conservatives misogynists and racists.

 

[timschochet]

This thread is a perfect example of how people are obsessed with the Clinton's. You have the absolute hatred on one side and the love on the other side. What I don't understand is the

hatred. I mean, people just absolutely HATE the Clinton's. Why?

They have a "D" beside of their name?

No. And it's not Bill either. For Hillary and Obama, there is a level of hatred among conservatives that is unsurpassed in my lifetime, IMO.

For anyone who happens to be new here, this is Tim's subtle way of calling conservatives misogynists and racists.

gee thanks. But in truth I doubt it has much to do with either. What you wrote would be the simple implication. But I think it's far deeper- these two are the face of the biggest threat to the conservative psyche- the changing demography of this country. But it not racism or bigotry against women that make conservatives fear this- it's the perception that the majority of this new demography does not share their political, social, and moral convictions, and will destroy everything that, according to conservatism, makes America great. Obama and Hillary are the vanguard of this threat.

 

[otello]

@HillaryClinton slept through the mtg where she was to get the Presidential Daily Brief. "I just woke up" she wrote at 10:43 am on 9/15/12

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/05/22/while-hillary-slept/?utm_campaign=wp-to-twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter

 

[Johnnymac]

This thread is a perfect example of how people are obsessed with the Clinton's. You have the absolute hatred on one side and the love on the other side. What I don't understand is the hatred. I mean, people just absolutely HATE the Clinton's. Why?

They have a "D" beside of their name?

Yeah, it's that shallow. Everyone should just forget all of the two decades or more of shady #### that happens with the Clintons and focus on the "D" beside their name.

Do they have more shady #### than other politicians?

 

[BassNBrew]

This thread is a perfect example of how people are obsessed with the Clinton's. You have the absolute hatred on one side and the love on the other side. What I don't understand is the hatred. I mean, people just absolutely HATE the Clinton's. Why?

They have a "D" beside of their name?

Yeah, it's that shallow. Everyone should just forget all of the two decades or more of shady #### that happens with the Clintons and focus on the "D" beside their name.

Do they have more shady #### than other politicians?

Yes or at least than most others.

 

[Mister CIA]

This thread is a perfect example of how people are obsessed with the Clinton's. You have the absolute hatred on one side and the love on the other side. What I don't understand is the hatred. I mean, people just absolutely HATE the Clinton's. Why?

I'm not a hater, but I have no respect for her. Do you remember this little gem she dropped while she was backsliding against Obama as the Kentucky and West Virgina primaries were approaching in 2008?

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.""There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

 

[squistion]

This thread is a perfect example of how people are obsessed with the Clinton's. You have the absolute hatred on one side and the love on the other side. What I don't understand is the hatred. I mean, people just absolutely HATE the Clinton's. Why?

I'm not a hater, but I have no respect for her. Do you remember this little gem she dropped while she was backsliding against Obama as the Kentucky and West Virgina primaries were approaching in 2008?

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

It was poorly worded but was essentially the same thing that many election analysts were saying at the time, that because of racial demographics, Hillary was the more electable candidate.

In May 2008, as Obama was locking up the nomination, there were still serious doubts among Democrats that this country was ready to elect a black man - that there would be a "Tom Bradley effect" and many whites while saying they had no racial bias against Obama, would nevertheless not vote for him when the time came. It didn't play out that way but that was a common perception at the time.

 

[Mister CIA]

This thread is a perfect example of how people are obsessed with the Clinton's. You have the absolute hatred on one side and the love on the other side. What I don't understand is the hatred. I mean, people just absolutely HATE the Clinton's. Why?

I'm not a hater, but I have no respect for her. Do you remember this little gem she dropped while she was backsliding against Obama as the Kentucky and West Virgina primaries were approaching in 2008?

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

It was poorly worded but was essentially the same thing that many election analysts were saying at the time, that because of racial demographics, Hillary was the more electable candidate.

In May 2008, as Obama was locking up the nomination, there were still serious doubts among Democrats that this country was ready to elect a black man - that there would be a "Tom Bradley effect" and many whites while saying they had no racial bias against Obama, would nevertheless not vote for him when the time came. It didn't play out that way but that was a common perception at the time.

When the message is "Vote for me because I'm white," all word choices are poor.

It was desperate pandering too. You forgot to mention that.

 

[squistion]

This thread is a perfect example of how people are obsessed with the Clinton's. You have the absolute hatred on one side and the love on the other side. What I don't understand is the hatred. I mean, people just absolutely HATE the Clinton's. Why?

I'm not a hater, but I have no respect for her. Do you remember this little gem she dropped while she was backsliding against Obama as the Kentucky and West Virgina primaries were approaching in 2008?

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

It was poorly worded but was essentially the same thing that many election analysts were saying at the time, that because of racial demographics, Hillary was the more electable candidate.

In May 2008, as Obama was locking up the nomination, there were still serious doubts among Democrats that this country was ready to elect a black man - that there would be a "Tom Bradley effect" and many whites while saying they had no racial bias against Obama, would nevertheless not vote for him when the time came. It didn't play out that way but that was a common perception at the time.

When the message is "Vote for me because I'm white," all word choices are poor.It was desperate pandering too. You forgot to mention that.

Except that wasn't the message, saying she is most electable due to racial demographics is not the same thing as saying "Vote for me because I'm white." And again, that was what many election analysts were also saying. They were wrong, but that was the perception in May 2008.

I hear similar things on the GOP side today about Marco Rubio's appeal to Latinos, a perception that it will cost Democrats Hispanic votes due to his Cuban heritage. Is that pandering based on race or rather a reflection of racial demographics that Latinos may be more likely to vote for another Latino (which, by the way, I don't believe as Alan Keyes or Herman Cain never got much support in the black community).

 

[Mister CIA]

This thread is a perfect example of how people are obsessed with the Clinton's. You have the absolute hatred on one side and the love on the other side. What I don't understand is the hatred. I mean, people just absolutely HATE the Clinton's. Why?

I'm not a hater, but I have no respect for her. Do you remember this little gem she dropped while she was backsliding against Obama as the Kentucky and West Virgina primaries were approaching in 2008?

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

It was poorly worded but was essentially the same thing that many election analysts were saying at the time, that because of racial demographics, Hillary was the more electable candidate.

In May 2008, as Obama was locking up the nomination, there were still serious doubts among Democrats that this country was ready to elect a black man - that there would be a "Tom Bradley effect" and many whites while saying they had no racial bias against Obama, would nevertheless not vote for him when the time came. It didn't play out that way but that was a common perception at the time.

When the message is "Vote for me because I'm white," all word choices are poor.It was desperate pandering too. You forgot to mention that.

Except that wasn't the message, saying she is most electable due to racial demographics is not the same thing as saying "Vote for me because I'm white." And again, that was what many election analysts were also saying. They were wrong, but that was the perception in May 2008.

I hear similar things on the GOP side today about Marco Rubio's appeal to Latinos, a perception that it will cost Democrats Hispanic votes due to his Cuban heritage. Is that pandering based on race or rather a reflection of racial demographics that Latinos may be more likely to vote for another Latino (which, by the way, I don't believe as Alan Keyes or Herman Cain never got much support in the black community).

She was a scorned woman flinging poop.

 

[trogg78]

This thread is a perfect example of how people are obsessed with the Clinton's. You have the absolute hatred on one side and the love on the other side. What I don't understand is the hatred. I mean, people just absolutely HATE the Clinton's. Why?

I'm not a hater, but I have no respect for her. Do you remember this little gem she dropped while she was backsliding against Obama as the Kentucky and West Virgina primaries were approaching in 2008?

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

Just curious, but where exactly did you stumble upon steaming pile of hate bait.

 

[squistion]

This thread is a perfect example of how people are obsessed with the Clinton's. You have the absolute hatred on one side and the love on the other side. What I don't understand is the hatred. I mean, people just absolutely HATE the Clinton's. Why?

I'm not a hater, but I have no respect for her. Do you remember this little gem she dropped while she was backsliding against Obama as the Kentucky and West Virgina primaries were approaching in 2008?

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

It was poorly worded but was essentially the same thing that many election analysts were saying at the time, that because of racial demographics, Hillary was the more electable candidate.

In May 2008, as Obama was locking up the nomination, there were still serious doubts among Democrats that this country was ready to elect a black man - that there would be a "Tom Bradley effect" and many whites while saying they had no racial bias against Obama, would nevertheless not vote for him when the time came. It didn't play out that way but that was a common perception at the time.

When the message is "Vote for me because I'm white," all word choices are poor.It was desperate pandering too. You forgot to mention that.

Except that wasn't the message, saying she is most electable due to racial demographics is not the same thing as saying "Vote for me because I'm white." And again, that was what many election analysts were also saying. They were wrong, but that was the perception in May 2008.

I hear similar things on the GOP side today about Marco Rubio's appeal to Latinos, a perception that it will cost Democrats Hispanic votes due to his Cuban heritage. Is that pandering based on race or rather a reflection of racial demographics that Latinos may be more likely to vote for another Latino (which, by the way, I don't believe as Alan Keyes or Herman Cain never got much support in the black community).

She was a scorned woman flinging poop.

Glad your viewpoint is devoid of any sexism.

 

[Mister CIA]

This thread is a perfect example of how people are obsessed with the Clinton's. You have the absolute hatred on one side and the love on the other side. What I don't understand is the hatred. I mean, people just absolutely HATE the Clinton's. Why?

I'm not a hater, but I have no respect for her. Do you remember this little gem she dropped while she was backsliding against Obama as the Kentucky and West Virgina primaries were approaching in 2008?

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

Just curious, but where exactly did you stumble upon steaming pile of hate bait.

It was something from 2008 I could not forget. I had to google to find the exact quote, but it can be found on many sites.

Politico.com, for one.

 

[trogg78]

This thread is a perfect example of how people are obsessed with the Clinton's. You have the absolute hatred on one side and the love on the other side. What I don't understand is the hatred. I mean, people just absolutely HATE the Clinton's. Why?

I'm not a hater, but I have no respect for her. Do you remember this little gem she dropped while she was backsliding against Obama as the Kentucky and West Virgina primaries were approaching in 2008?

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

Just curious, but where exactly did you stumble upon steaming pile of hate bait.

It was something from 2008 I could not forget. I had to google to find the exact quote, but it can be found on many sites.Politico.com, for one.

I was curious what/who brought it up recently.

 

[Mister CIA]

This thread is a perfect example of how people are obsessed with the Clinton's. You have the absolute hatred on one side and the love on the other side. What I don't understand is the hatred. I mean, people just absolutely HATE the Clinton's. Why?

I'm not a hater, but I have no respect for her. Do you remember this little gem she dropped while she was backsliding against Obama as the Kentucky and West Virgina primaries were approaching in 2008?

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

It was poorly worded but was essentially the same thing that many election analysts were saying at the time, that because of racial demographics, Hillary was the more electable candidate.

In May 2008, as Obama was locking up the nomination, there were still serious doubts among Democrats that this country was ready to elect a black man - that there would be a "Tom Bradley effect" and many whites while saying they had no racial bias against Obama, would nevertheless not vote for him when the time came. It didn't play out that way but that was a common perception at the time.

When the message is "Vote for me because I'm white," all word choices are poor.It was desperate pandering too. You forgot to mention that.

Except that wasn't the message, saying she is most electable due to racial demographics is not the same thing as saying "Vote for me because I'm white." And again, that was what many election analysts were also saying. They were wrong, but that was the perception in May 2008.

I hear similar things on the GOP side today about Marco Rubio's appeal to Latinos, a perception that it will cost Democrats Hispanic votes due to his Cuban heritage. Is that pandering based on race or rather a reflection of racial demographics that Latinos may be more likely to vote for another Latino (which, by the way, I don't believe as Alan Keyes or Herman Cain never got much support in the black community).

She was a scorned woman flinging poop.

Glad your viewpoint is devoid of any sexism.

It's good for the goose.